Jihad with Sword – Ahmadi site

  • Thread starter Thread starter paarsurrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paarsurrey

Guest
Hi
One of my non-Catholic non-friend (as he says he is neither my friend nor a Catholic; then he must be a Protestant for sure if he is not a JW), never mind, we continue our friendly discussion on this friendly forum. I copy/paste his post from the thread “A peaceful man that Muhammad was”, in my next post here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2494559

He has suggested me reading an ** Ahmadi site** on Jihad, when I opened; I saw an essay titled “Jihad with Sword”.
Kindly read the essay and feel free to comment here, for a friendly discussion.
Consequently I have named this thread “Jihad with Sword – Ahmadi site”.
Thanks
 
**#159 **
Today, 5:35 am

Montalban
Senior Member Join Date: August 27, 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,688

Re: **A peaceful man that Muhammad was **
Originally Posted by paarsurrey
Click to expand...
Hi My Catholic friend Montalban!

I am neither your friend, nor Catholic.
Originally Posted by paarsurrey
Click to expand...
Well you would admit that at the end of almost every post I write that I am an Ahmadi- a peaceful faith in Islam, so I have concealed nothing from anybody, be he a Catholic/Protestant or Sunni/Shia.

Indeed, but you still say “Islam is this or that”. You’re a minority view of Islam, at best
Originally Posted by paarsurrey
Click to expand...
Please remember when Jesus, a Jew, was sent by GodAllahYHWH as a ProphetMessenger he started alone, the Jews were in the majority or they were the mainstream of Judaism or normative Jews as some Catholics have used such words, but Jesus had his different views from the Jews. Jesus scolded/cursed Jewish Sadducees and Pharisees and yet we believe that Jesus was truthful, this did not make him untruthful, he also said that he was Jew, while the Catholics don’t call them Jews. So our stance is exactly what was Jesus’ stance against Jews . I think you understand.

If Jesus taught non-Jewish things as Jewish things…
Originally Posted by paarsurrey
Now the Promised Messiah is just like that, as this is the second coming of Jesus in his symbolic form, so the situation is not different but similar.
Click to expand...
Problem for you is that as far as Christianity is concerned, our Messiah has come. As far as Islam has come, no more prophets are due. You simply are an add-on to an add-on.
Originally Posted by paarsurrey
We Ahmadis are 200,000,000 in numbers, maybe it is comparable with Jesus in his first hundred years, and we are in 186 countries.
Click to expand...
Super. Which of the two groups of Ahmadi are you?
Originally Posted by paarsurrey
I think that is sufficient for a peaceful reply. God bless you!
Thanks
Click to expand...
But, as noted, if Mormons came onto this forum and started saying “Christians believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet”, they’d be corrected as not representing Christian thought, but Mormon thought.

If you go to this **Ahmadi site ** alislam.org/jihad/sword.html
you’ll note that they recognise that their version of Jihad is distinct from the Islamic view.
 
Hi

Not many friends seem to have visited the website suggested.Since this is an important topic to diffuse tension among Muslims and non-Muslim theseday, I would like to give it here for everybody’s benefit:

Jihad with Sword

One of the reasons for which Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Sect in Islam has been branded as Kafir is that he has denounced Jihad. We give below an excerpt from his writings in which he has given an exposition of the kind of Jihad which he has forbidden. It is easy to see from it that the Jihad which he has denounced consists in propagating Islam at the point of sword.

Such a Jihad has no authority in the Holy Quran or the Traditions of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The Holy Quran rejects it by pronouncing there should be no compulsion in religion (2:257). The Promised Messiah explains in this article that early wars of Islam were fought in self defence only and that Islam strongly condemns those ignorant Muslims who seek to become Ghazis by killing innocent non-Muslims.
In fact this view of Jihad presents Islam in the most detestable form and by generating enmity and hatred amongst non-Muslims alienates them from it irrevocably.

Everyone would tremble in the company of such a bigoted Muslim, for at any moment he might choose to be Ghazi and make a short work of him. This would, indeed defeat the very object of Islam, which is to win over the whole mankind by preaching its message of love and amity.
Anybody who reads the following article can judge for himself whether by denouncing such a bloody interpretation of Jihad, the Promised Messiah deserves to be branded as a Kafir or to be hailed as a Champion of Islam. (Ed.)

"There is not the least truth in the assertion that it is time for resorting to the sword and gun for spreading the true religion and righteousness. The sword, far from revealing the beauties and excellence of truth, makes them dubious and throws them into background. Those who hold such views are not the friends of Islam but its deadly foes. They have low motives, mean natures, poor spirits, narrow minds, dull brains and short sight. It is they who open the way to an objection against Islam, the validity of which cannot questioned.

They hold that Islam needs the sword for their advancement, thus brand its purity and cast a slur upon its holy name. The religion that can easily establish its truth and superiority by sound intellectual arguments, heavenly signs or other reliable testimony, does not need the sword to threaten men and force a confession of its truth from them. Religion is worth the name only so long as it is in consonance with reason. If it fails to satisfy that requisite, if it has to make up for its discomfiture in argument by handling the sword, it needs no other argument for its falsification.

The sword it wields cuts its own throat before reaching others.
If it be objected that sword was resorted to by early Islam and hence the legality of Jihad, we say the objection is based upon ignorance of early Islamic circumstances. Islam never allowed the use of the sword for spreading the faith. On the other hand, it strictly prohibits compulsion in matters of faith. It has the plain injunction “There should be no compulsion in religion.” Why was the sword taken in hand then?
Unquote - to be conitnued in my next post

Thanks
 
Ahmadi’s have over 200,000,000, that seems a little high, did you mean 200,000 paarsuey? Sorry to go off topic.
 
hcac said:
Ahmadi’s have over 200,000,000, that seems a little high, did you mean 200,000 paarsuey? Sorry to go off topic.
Click to expand...
Hi

I think I wrote the correct figure, in Urdu we say it twenty crores, what you worte is just two lacs only.

Thanks

The ultimate truth about Jesus is that he died in Kashmir
 
Montalban said:
But you argued your view ***is ***Islamic. Now you’re saying it’s different!?!
Click to expand...
Hi

Our view is truly Islamic and Muhammad’s/Quran’s view, which is central yet distinctively different from the Mullah’s view or Traditional Muslim view.

Thanks

The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of peaceful and human loving Muhammad and his religion Islam and Islam of PromisedMessiahImamMahdi is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking moral and peaceful.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Our view is truly Islamic and Muhammad’s/Quran’s view, which is central yet distinctively different from the Mullah’s view or Traditional Muslim view.
You are the one who created the dichotomy by saying you can compare your religion to the “Islamic view”.
Click to expand...
 
hcac said:
paarsurrey;2523516:
Hi

I think I wrote the correct figure, in Urdu we say it twenty crores, what you worte is just two lacs only.

Thanks
Click to expand...
What are crores and lacs. On Answers.com it says theres only 10,000,000+ Ahmadi Muslims in the world.

answers.com/topic/ahmadi

Hi
Numbers don’t matter with me much, as long as I am Ahmadi, it does not matter much for me. Our official website is :
alislam.org/

Thanks for providing a link which I was not aware of.
Click to expand...
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi
Numbers don’t matter with me much, as long as I am Ahmadi, it does not matter much for me. Our official website is :
alislam.org/

Thanks for providing a link which I was not aware of.
Click to expand...
But there’s two branches of your faith. Which one are you?

I note that that site says Aisha was nine years old!
 
Hi

One of my friends here visited official website of our Ahmadia - a peaceful community in Islam and suggested me reading an essay titled “Jihad with Sword” as mentioned in the OP. I continue giving an excerpt from it next .

Kindly read the essay and feel free to comment here, for a friendly discussion:

"The circumstances under which this measure had been resorted to have nothing to do with the spread of religion; they are connected with the preservation of life. Briefly, they are as follows:

The savage inhabitants of the deserts of Arabia, who could hardly distinguish right from wrong, conceived a hatred towards Islam in its early days and became its bitterest enemies. The reason of this hatred may be easily conceived. When the unity of God and the Islamic truths were preached openly to idolatrous Arabs and convincing arguments against idol worship were impressed upon their minds and they were told how degrading it was for the noblest of God’s creatures to bow submission to stones, they found themselves unable to meet the adherents of the new faith upon argumentative ground.

This exposure led to a motion in favour of Islam among the more reasonable of them. The ties of relationship were cut asunder, the son parted from his parents and brother from his brother. This exasperated them the more and they saw plainly that if their fathers’ false religion was to be saved, excessive measures must be taken to stop the ingress into the new religion.

The new converts to Islam were therefore violently persecuted and no efforts were spared to block the way to the new faith. Those acquainted with early Muslim history know full well what barbarous and cruel treatment was meted out to the early converts, and how many were murdered in cold blood. But those harsh measures did not prevent people from the acceptance of truth, for even a superficial glance is enough to convince a man of the reasonableness and purity of Islam as against idolatry.

At length when the implacable foes of Islam saw that severe persecution availed but little and that their ancient religion was threatened to be swept away in the current of Muslim reason, they planned the death of the Prophet himself. But their designs were frustrated. Almighty God saved His messenger and took him to Medina.

The unbelievers, however, could not rest in their homes so long as they heard that the religion they had persecuted was gaining ground in another place. They pursued the Muslims to their new abode, and nothing but their extirpation could satisfy them. What could Islam do under the circumstances but defend itself? For what fault were Muslims to be mercilessly butchered and not allowed to protect their lives?

Why should not the inveterate persecutors have been brought to retribution and just punishment? The Muslim battles were therefore not undertaken for gaining converts but to protect innocent Muslims lives. Can an unbiased judgement accept the conclusion that Islam was unable to prove its reasonableness as against savage Arabs? Can an unprejudiced mind believe that men who had sunk down so low as to worship images and lifeless things and who indulged in every manner of vice, could yet vanquish the noble religion of Islam on intellectual grounds, and that failure in proof led it to resort to the sword for increasing the number of its followers?

Those who have advanced such objections against Islam have been guilty of grave injustice, inasmuch as they have concealed the true state of facts.

It is, however, true that the Muslim Maulvis and the Christian missionaries are equally to blame for this unjust charge against Islam. The ignorant Maulvis while pretending to support Islam have by their repeated inculcation, ingrafted the false doctrine of Jihad upon the minds of the unenlightened public who were misled by the fatwas of the Maulvis on the one side and the objections of the Christian Missionaries, whom they took for learned men, on the other.

The doctrine of Jihad being thus supported by the evidence of two opposing witnesses, its validity could not be questioned by the masses. Had the Missionaries taken a different course and with true honesty declared that the fatwas of the Maulvis were based on ignorance of the early Islamic history, and that the circumstances which then rendered an appeal to arms necessary for Muslims, did not exist any more, the idea of Jihad would long have been eradicated from the face of the earth.

But they never looked to the consequences and a misdirected zeal for their own religion cast a veil over their judgements in grasping the truth.Unquote

Thanks
 
My initial impression with the article:

This sentence I think is very telling:
Jihad with sword article:
It is, however, true that the Muslim Maulvis and the Christian missionaries are equally to blame for this unjust charge against Islam.
Click to expand...
The person who wrote the article makes reference to a specific type of Muslim, yet makes a general statement about Christian missionaries.

What exactly is a Muslim Maulvis? What specific Christian missionaries are being referred to here?
Jihad with sword article:
The ignorant Maulvis…
Click to expand...
By what authority does this person speak? Can you point me to some leadership within this Islamic community that can help support the position this person is writing about?

Thanks! 🙂
 
Hi

One of my friends here visited official website of our Ahmadia - a peaceful community in Islam and suggested me reading an essay titled “Jihad with Sword” as mentioned in the OP. I continue giving an excerpt from it next .

Kindly read the essay and feel free to comment here, for a friendly discussion:

It must also be stated here that permission for self-defence and murdering the enemies of Islam was not given to the Muslims until the Arabs had, on account of their excessive oppressions and outrages and innocent bloodshed, rendered themselves culpable and liable to be punished with death. But a clemency was even then shown to such of them as embraced Islam. The unity of religion established a relation of brotherhood and all past wrongs were forgotten. It is here that some opponents of Islam have stumbled and from this they draw the conclusion that the new religion was forced upon the unbelievers.

In fact, the case is just the reverse of what the objectors have thought. There is no compulsion here; it was a favour to those who had rendered themselves liable to death. It is apparently absurd to take this conditional mitigation of just punishment for compulsion. They deserved to be murdered, not because they did not believe in the mission of the Prophet, but because they had murdered many an innocent soul. The extreme penalty of the law was upon them, mercy of the Gracious God gave them another chance of averting this merited capital punishment.

He knew that during the long years of opposition the Islamic truths had been brought home to them and they well understood the futility of idol-worship, therefore His mercy offered them an opportunity even after the sentence was justly pronounced against them, for imploring His pardon and the forgiveness of their sins. This clearly shows that it was not the object of Islam to put any unbeliever merely as such to death, but that it was willing to forgive even when the criminal was found deserving of death.

Islam had to grapple with other difficulties. Religious prejudice was so strong at the time that if a member of any tribe adopted the faith of Islam, he was either put to death or threatened with it, and persecution was so severe that life seemed a burden to him. Islam had therefore to face the difficulty of establishing freedom of religious exercise and for this noble object it had to undertake wars.

The early wars of Islam fall under either of the above headings and it never took the sword for its own propagation or for any other purpose. Attempts were made to blot out its very existence and therefore its life. It did not take up arms of its own accord but was compelled to do so. It had to defend itself and repel the dangerous foe.

Later on, when its true principle were forgotten, the doctrine was read in a different light and ignorance looked with pride upon a hateful course of life. But the fault can in no way be attributed to Islam. The source from which it flows is pure and undefiled. That this doctrine has been identified with Islamic teachings by shallow-brained zealots who do not care for the life of man even so much as man should care for the life of a sparrow, cannot be questioned.

But the innocent blood that has been split in the past does not satisfy them. They have yet a bloody Mahdi in store for the world and would like to exhibit the ugliest picture of Islam before all nations, that all people may know that Islam has always had to resort for its propagation to compulsion and the sword, and that it has not particle of truth in it to gain its conquest over hearts.

It seems as if the holders of these views are not satisfied with the humiliation and decadence with Islam has already suffered, but must bring it still lower and subject it to yet more disgrace. These men are a reproach to Islam. But God now wills that Islam should not be branded with reproaches and remain under a cloud any more. It is already so distressing to find that its opponents who have not taken the trouble to investigate matters for themselves, have it impressed upon their minds that Islam has from its very beginning been employing the sword to add to its numbers."

unquote

Muhammad had a marvelous record of a peace loving person for 40+13=53 years, he joined in welfare activities if there was any in Mecca, he helped the needy and in distress, he stood for the human cause, he never harmed any person. His record in these 53 years is clean by any standards.
 
dolphinlove said:
Try asking him what did Mohammed do after his 53 years of his so called ‘peaceful’ life… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I still can’t fathom why Moslems would enter a debate site and knowingly avoid discussion? Can it be believed that this ‘advertisement’ of Islamic logic draw people to Islam?
 
Montalban said:
I still can’t fathom why Moslems would enter a debate site and knowingly avoid discussion? Can it be believed that this ‘advertisement’ of Islamic logic draw people to Islam?
Click to expand...
I find that people that are Muslim are either, born in the religion, are forced to convert into Islam or are just lost their way in life and are easily convinced that Islam is the way, basically they dont know any better and take the easiest option, and we know how muslims can lie to make the religion look good. Some people are easily influenced by lies and deception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top